Or Arpaio was acting in good faith in an official capacity and thus should have been immune from civil and criminal prosecution for acts done by his department. We really shouldn’t be criminalizing policy differences, that should have been and eventually were settled at the ballot box. Did he really have a criminal mind, did he really want his deputies to kill and torture? Or was his approach flawed — was his desire for tough enforcement of immigration law a concept that led to deaths he did not intend. Criminal contempt of court should allow a jury trial, but that was not allowed in this case, possibly because the judges fear juries would not convict and send an 85 year old man to prison. Not saying what Arpaio did was right. But the case for jailing him is far more debatable. If if there is more than a whiff of judicial tyranny in his pending incarceration, the use of the pardon is a legitimate use of a check built into the Constitution by design to stop judicial excess.